im sure all will be revealed when the expansion is released, and i've been bugging damon with a few questions lately, so i thought id see what others might think of the questions that prophecies have impressed upon me.

A ) would prophecies be considered 'attachments' as they do kinda attach to the draw deck.

B ) does the prophecy, if unused, then become the first drawn card in the next draw phase.

we're just mucking around with them on lackey and it'd be interesting to know the answers to these if anyone has an insightful preview.

thanks.

I don't have any inside info, but I think prophecies won't be attachments. They are worded "place this card face up on your deck" (no use of "attach" here) and they neither have the attachment subtype printed. So I can't see any reason why they should be considered attachments.

I also think the player will need to draw the prophecy if it is still on top of his deck in the next draw phase. If FFG wouldn't have wanted this behaviour, they would have instructed players to put the prophecy card somewhere else. And Damon Stone recently clarified that "draw a card" means putting the topmost card on your deck in your hand.

yeah. fair points. only that 'attach' is only a requirement for certain cards to enter play. any card that attaches to another, through whatever means, immediately gains the support subtype and attachment keyword, regardless of whether it started with either. so, the only question is, is the deck considered to fall into this category. im thinking not either, but after the alyssa debacle, id like to know for sure, and im thinking damon is shaking his head at me already for all my recent questions, especially if its all explained in the expansion. haha. was just some random thoughts anyway, as im curious to know if there is any way of removing them, as the miskatonic prophecy is basically a 'touch me and i get some really cool cards for the turn' against a combat oriented deck.

COCLCG said:

I know, that's what I'm talking about - the action of the event doesn't use the word "attach", so FAQ ruling (1.3) isn't relevant and prophecies won't be attachments. (Unless it is stated otherwise in the rules sheet of the Seekers of Knowledge box, of course. But the only reason for such an explicit ruling is that FFG wants prophecies to be more vulnerable against already existing cards, e.g. against Get it Off. Because prophecies already have a drawback (you draw them into your hand if you don't fulfill them, effectively reducing your card draw by 1), I think this is not very likely.)

COCLCG said:

Hehe, I also thought shortly about whether asking questions about a yet-to-be-released-product is ok or not, and decided I'll just wait what the rules sheet is saying. What is unclear to me is if the prophecy is considered to be in play, or gets an extra ruling that you may trigger prophecies's responses from on out-of-play state…. But those are details which will be answered in the rules sheet (I hope).

For ways of removing them: I don't know of a card that states to discard an event card. I only know of effects cancelling triggered effects (like Power Drain) which can be used against events… But any deck-milling card will be able to get rid of an opponent's prophecy, since it's just the top card of a deck.

I agree with the others, not an attachment, and if it's still there you will draw it.

Generally I expect people will not play a prophecy unless they are confident they can fulfill its condition - and the ones we've seen so far don't seem difficult to achieve if you've designed them into your deck.

I'm really interested to see how they work out though, these have the potential to be a very interesting new card type. I just hope they aren't a flash in the pan mechanism like Polar - I'd like to see more Prophecies come out in the future from time to time.

*******************DELETED*************************

Well, now that we've seen the Rules Addendum for the Prophesy cards, are there still questions open?

The first thing I checked was if it was possible to trigger them if the card was only revealed, e.g. via 'Prism of the Many Views'. Since the wording uses the defined term 'then' it appears to only work if you play it from your hand.

It also clarifies how drawing cards works when a triggerable Prophesy card is on top of your deck.

I'm not 100% sure about some of the individual Prophesy card's effects, though. E.g. Por XV 14:19 (Cthulhu faction):

Response : After a character is sacrificed, discard Por XV 14:19 from the top of your deck to add the top 2 cards of your discard pile to 2 different domains.

I guess that Por XV 14:19 becomes the top card of the discard pile _after_ the Response has been resolved, right?

I've also been wondering about a new choice of words: 'made insane':

Faculty Advisor (Touched by the Abyss F110) was the first card to use it.

Previously 'goes insane' was the most common wording and Lunatics use the wording 'drive insane'. Does it mean something new or is it supposed to cover only a subset of effects that can turn a character insane?

jhaelen said:

to my knowledge cost goes before effect, so the prophecy would enter the discard pile, then be used as the first domain attachment.

jhaelen said:

that is an interesting one and needs to be clarified. cthulu-ese is often different from actual english. 'made' insane would indicate that it is done through a character ability or event card, as it is forced to go insane, whereas you simply 'go' insane as the result of a terror struggle. but yes, it might be a cthulhu-ese umbrella term for the lot.

"drive insane" seems to imply that you're doing it voluntarily, this version only seems to be seen on cards (like Lunatics) where you can choose to have a character go insane of their own accord.

I don't think it has any particular game implications though.